Well, you are right. The Churches who use the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the First Ecumenical Council and they should select a calendar where the man-made calendar or overlay is in sync with God's time to become compliant. You will then see that the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 21st Century become in sync again with the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 4th Century.

1. We know that the early Church accepted the Julian Calendar with its imperfections in all innocence because of the state of science at the time.2. We also know that the 1924 acceptance of the Revised Julian Calendar was a conscious decision to accept a flawed calendar and to reject a more accurate calendar (proposed to the bishops by Milankovic.) What excuse is there for the New Calendar Churches which knowingly rejected a calendar which is in synch with God's time?

I am not sure if I am reading your response as you intended correctly but the bishops did accept the proposed rule by Milankovic. That is why the Revised Julian Calendar will differ from the Gregorian beginning in teh year 2800, because it adopted Milakovic's leap year rule differing from the Gregorian calendar by stating that years evenly divisible by four are leap years, with only years evenly divisible by 100 not being leap years, unless they leave a remainder of 200 or 600 when divided by 900, in which case they are leap years. Thus they accepted Milankovic's rule, thereby making the avereage length of the year 365.242222, and also creating a difference between the Gregorian and Revised Julian.

Yes, they accepted a specific rule/calculation of Milankovic's devising which would bring the Revised Julian Calendar into synch with the Gregorian Calendar for as long as possible. Their intention in this was not accuracy in the calendar but to be in synch with Rome and the Western calendar. Milankvic's accurate calendar was not accepted by the bishops. This is all covered earlier in this thread with information from academicians such as Trajkovska.

Well, you are right. The Churches who use the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the First Ecumenical Council and they should select a calendar where the man-made calendar or overlay is in sync with God's time to become compliant. You will then see that the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 21st Century become in sync again with the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 4th Century.

1. We know that the early Church accepted the Julian Calendar with its imperfections in all innocence because of the state of science at the time.2. We also know that the 1924 acceptance of the Revised Julian Calendar was a conscious decision to accept a flawed calendar and to reject a more accurate calendar (proposed to the bishops by Milankovic.) What excuse is there for the New Calendar Churches which knowingly rejected a calendar which is in synch with God's time?

I am not sure if I am reading your response as you intended correctly but the bishops did accept the proposed rule by Milankovic. That is why the Revised Julian Calendar will differ from the Gregorian beginning in teh year 2800, because it adopted Milakovic's leap year rule differing from the Gregorian calendar by stating that years evenly divisible by four are leap years, with only years evenly divisible by 100 not being leap years, unless they leave a remainder of 200 or 600 when divided by 900, in which case they are leap years. Thus they accepted Milankovic's rule, thereby making the avereage length of the year 365.242222, and also creating a difference between the Gregorian and Revised Julian.

Yes, they accepted a specific rule/calculation of Milankovic's devising which would bring the Revised Julian Calendar into synch with the Gregorian Calendar for as long as possible. Their intention in this was not accuracy in the calendar but to be in synch with Rome and the Western calendar. Milankvic's accurate calendar was not accepted by the bishops. This is all covered earlier in this thread with information from academicians such as Trajkovska.

Now that you insist on bringing up this canard again despite my informal caution earlier today, let me remind you that you still haven't fulfilled my moderatorial request that you substantiate your claim that the Milankovic Calendar is different from and more accurate than the Revised Julian Calendar the calendar reform synod of 1923 ultimately adopted. I therefore think it necessary to renew my formal insistence that you defend your assertion from sources other than those you have already cited before I permit you to continue preaching it as truth.

Well, you are right. The Churches who use the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the First Ecumenical Council and they should select a calendar where the man-made calendar or overlay is in sync with God's time to become compliant. You will then see that the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 21st Century become in sync again with the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 4th Century.

1. We know that the early Church accepted the Julian Calendar with its imperfections in all innocence because of the state of science at the time.2. We also know that the 1924 acceptance of the Revised Julian Calendar was a conscious decision to accept a flawed calendar and to reject a more accurate calendar (proposed to the bishops by Milankovic.) What excuse is there for the New Calendar Churches which knowingly rejected a calendar which is in synch with God's time?

I am not sure if I am reading your response as you intended correctly but the bishops did accept the proposed rule by Milankovic. That is why the Revised Julian Calendar will differ from the Gregorian beginning in teh year 2800, because it adopted Milakovic's leap year rule differing from the Gregorian calendar by stating that years evenly divisible by four are leap years, with only years evenly divisible by 100 not being leap years, unless they leave a remainder of 200 or 600 when divided by 900, in which case they are leap years. Thus they accepted Milankovic's rule, thereby making the avereage length of the year 365.242222, and also creating a difference between the Gregorian and Revised Julian.

Yes, they accepted a specific rule/calculation of Milankovic's devising which would bring the Revised Julian Calendar into synch with the Gregorian Calendar for as long as possible. Their intention in this was not accuracy in the calendar but to be in synch with Rome and the Western calendar. Milankvic's accurate calendar was not accepted by the bishops. This is all covered earlier in this thread with information from academicians such as Trajkovska.

Although this has become an enormously long thread I would encourage people to dredge through it and make their own decisions. I am holding fast to the position I was taught in Serbia where people can still seethe over the rejection of Milankovic's calendar by the Constantinople Synod. Believe me, if Milankovic's calendar had been accepted, the celebrations in Serbia would have gone on 10 years!

Well, you are right. The Churches who use the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the First Ecumenical Council and they should select a calendar where the man-made calendar or overlay is in sync with God's time to become compliant. You will then see that the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 21st Century become in sync again with the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 4th Century.

1. We know that the early Church accepted the Julian Calendar with its imperfections in all innocence because of the state of science at the time.2. We also know that the 1924 acceptance of the Revised Julian Calendar was a conscious decision to accept a flawed calendar and to reject a more accurate calendar (proposed to the bishops by Milankovic.) What excuse is there for the New Calendar Churches which knowingly rejected a calendar which is in synch with God's time?

I am not sure if I am reading your response as you intended correctly but the bishops did accept the proposed rule by Milankovic. That is why the Revised Julian Calendar will differ from the Gregorian beginning in teh year 2800, because it adopted Milakovic's leap year rule differing from the Gregorian calendar by stating that years evenly divisible by four are leap years, with only years evenly divisible by 100 not being leap years, unless they leave a remainder of 200 or 600 when divided by 900, in which case they are leap years. Thus they accepted Milankovic's rule, thereby making the avereage length of the year 365.242222, and also creating a difference between the Gregorian and Revised Julian.

Yes, they accepted a specific rule/calculation of Milankovic's devising which would bring the Revised Julian Calendar into synch with the Gregorian Calendar for as long as possible. Their intention in this was not accuracy in the calendar but to be in synch with Rome and the Western calendar. Milankvic's accurate calendar was not accepted by the bishops. This is all covered earlier in this thread with information from academicians such as Trajkovska.

Although this has become an enormously long thread I would encourage people to dredge through it and make their own decisions. I am holding fast to the position I was taught in Serbia where people can still seethe over the rejection of Milankovic's calendar by the Constantinople Synod. Believe me, if Milankovic's calendar had been accepted, the celebrations in Serbia would have gone on 10 years!

If you personally want to believe, despite the evidence against your claim, that the calendar reform synod rejected the Milankovic Calendar, go right on ahead. I just charge you, with the goal of maintaining peace on this thread, to not state this belief again as anything more than just your personal belief until you can substantiate it with evidence from sources other than those you cited already. If you wish to object further to my decision, please PM me your objection so it doesn't derail this thread. Thank you.

Hi Azul. It occurred to me that I owe you a more evolved answer than the one I gave to Scamandrius. Let's start with two premises. First, that what God has created is essentially good and holy. Second, that the decisions of the Church regarding the setting of the dates of Pascha and the major feasts were guided by the Holy Spirit. We will approach this from the perspective of the dates for Pascha and the major feasts.

Pascha was set to be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first moon after the Vernal (or Spring) Equinox. Then the Fathers decided to standardize the date of the Vernal Equinox as March 21st. They did so because the Vernal Equinox vacillated plus or minus one day around March 21st. The Fathers did not know at that time that they had a bigger problem than the plus/minus one day problem. The Julian Calendar that they were using had a fundamental problem with it as it increasingly diverged from the Vernal Equinox. We see the proof of it today: The Julian Calendar shows the Vernal Equinox to occur 13 days after this event has actually happened. So, today the users of the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the decree of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. They seem to be in compliance with the later decree that set the Vernal Equinox on March 21st, but the operative word here is "seem." In reality, no man-made calendar can override God's time. All man made calendars are defective if they are not in accord with God's time. Therefore, the proper way to honor God's time and the decision of the First Ecumenical Council would be to use a man-made calendar in which the Vernal Equinox is shown to happen on March 21st.

We happen to have another and better example of the conflict between God's time and man-made calendar: it is the celebration of Nativity. There is no question that this feast was originally celebrated on the same day as Epiphany and that it was later moved to the day of the Winter Solstice, which was December 25th when the move was made. So, the problem here is that the Old calendar is deviating from God's time (Winter Solstice=December 25th) and its adherents are elevating the Julian Calendar to be more authoritative than God's time. However, I am sure that you can see that moving Winter Solstice (Nativity or December 25th) to a later time just because of a man-made calendar is odd to say the least.

May be it would help if you think of God's time as being the basic and unchanging reality. Now, think of the calendar (any calendar) as being a template that we try to lay over God's time. If the two coincide, the man-made template is correct. If they do not, the man-made calendar is no good. I would point out one more thing. All man-made calendars cannot conform 100% to God's time so we have to make periodic adjustments. At this day of our existence, two calendars are the closest to God's time: The Gregorian and the Revised Julian. The Julian Calendar (old calendar) is not even close; it is in fact grossly out of sync and is becoming worse and worse as far as we can see.

The Old Calendar is perfect from the ecclesiastical point of view and that is what is most important... the calendar we have now is not... When the reformed calendar will satisfy the ecclesiastical perfection than i`ll give the caeser what belongs to the caeser...

Well, you are right. The Churches who use the Julian Calendar are in non-compliance with the First Ecumenical Council and they should select a calendar where the man-made calendar or overlay is in sync with God's time to become compliant. You will then see that the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 21st Century become in sync again with the ecclesiastical calendar of the early 4th Century.

Dear Second Chance,

There is an interesting post from Ozgeorge which connects with what you are saying re the Revised Julian, the First Ecumenical Council and the dating of Pascha.

It is more complete and more accurate than the revised one... It`s not the solar time that matters, but the ecclesial time...

If the solar time didn't matter, then why is there a solar event (the Equinox) in the calendar? Why did the Fathers not specify the Pascha as "First Sunday after the First Full Moon after mid-March?" They instead specified a day (the equinox) which is not fixed by the calendar but rather by the Sun. Weird, no?

"I generally don't, and I don't encourage anyone else to."

You just did..

Of course that it is correct in all ecclesiastic elements...

The Pascha was calculated after a virtual equinox which was set to be at 21 March, Julian ... that being 8 Gregorian... So the new Paschalion is NOT after the sinod of Niceea , to be calculated under those prescriptions the equinox that we would need to guide would be 8 March(21 March Julian) after the calendar they used..

So yes the Old is more accurate

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

Could you prove that you are not a liar by providing evidence to support your claim that The Revised Julian is not the Milankovic Calendar, contrary to what this scientific paper says: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JAHH...11...50DOr are you just a liar by nature?

ozgeorge:

Quote

Actually, the Revised Julian is deliberately not astronomically accurate in order to maintain the unity of the Paschalion. There was a proposal at the 1923 Synod to adopt an astronomically correct method of determining the date of Pascha which was not adopted since it would occassionally lead to differences between the Julian and Revised Julian Paschalions.

The Revised Julian is only "astronomically accurate" insofar as it adopted the Milankovic rule for calculating the century Leap Years. Milankovic's rule is that a century year is a Leap Year only if, when it is divided by 900 the remainder is 200 or 600 (as compared to the Gregorian rule which makes century years Leap Years if divisible by 400). It means that the Revised Julian is a much closer approximation to the average length of time it actually takes the Earth to orbit the Sun.

None of the calendars (Gregorian, Julian, Revised Julian) are actually "astronomically accurate" since none of them use actual astronomic observations. The Canons of the first Ecumenical Council decreed that Pascha would be the first Sunday after the first Full Moon after the Vernal Equinox. But all the calendars assume that the date of the Vernal Equinox is March 21, whereas in fact it currently ranges from March 20-22 and as time progresses, even these dates will change due to the Progression of the Equinoxes. Furthermore, on the Julian and Revised Julian, the date of the Paschal Full Moon is determined by ancient calculation tables (not actual observation).

The rejected proposal was that the Vernal Equinox would be defined by actual astronomical observation as observed from Jerusalem. Adopting this would in fact align our practice for calculating Pascha more closely with the Canons of the First Ecumenical Council, but it was rejected in favour of maintaining unity.

orthodoxlurker:

Quote

It is a common knowledge:

Serbian Patriarchate proposed Tripkovic's calendar (since that was the proposal debated and adopted at the Synod); Milankovic was a delegate of the Kingdom of Serbs ... etc., about which he was notified about a month before the conference: he acquinted himself with Metropolitan Dozic shortly before travel, and discussed more at the train to Istanbul, when he pointed that he prepared a more accuratre one calendar. To obey the decision of Synod, Metropolitan suggested they stick with Tripkovic's calendar as the proposal, but advised Milankovic to expose more accurate calculations during the debate about the proposal. There were competing proposals at the "Pan-orthodox" conference, Romanians made at least one comprehensive.

Therefore "Pan-orthodox" conference couldnt' have adopted Milankovic's calendar, since it wasn't proposed to it in the first place. The conference was held on May, 1923, while Milankovic published his final version on October 1923.

I am not sure if I am reading your response as you intended correctly but the bishops did accept the proposed rule by Milankovic. That is why the Revised Julian Calendar will differ from the Gregorian beginning in teh year 2800, because it adopted Milakovic's leap year rule differing from the Gregorian calendar by stating that years evenly divisible by four are leap years, with only years evenly divisible by 100 not being leap years, unless they leave a remainder of 200 or 600 when divided by 900, in which case they are leap years. Thus they accepted Milankovic's rule, thereby making the avereage length of the year 365.242222, and also creating a difference between the Gregorian and Revised Julian.

It seems to me, PtA, that the target of your ire (Irish Hermit) is misplaced. Take it up with ozgeorge, orthodoxlurker and FrHLL, in light of the above.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

It is more complete and more accurate than the revised one... It`s not the solar time that matters, but the ecclesial time...

If the solar time didn't matter, then why is there a solar event (the Equinox) in the calendar? Why did the Fathers not specify the Pascha as "First Sunday after the First Full Moon after mid-March?" They instead specified a day (the equinox) which is not fixed by the calendar but rather by the Sun. Weird, no?

The Pascha was calculated after a virtual equinox which was set to be at 21 March, Julian ... that being 8 Gregorian... So the new Paschalion is NOT after the sinod of Niceea , to be calculated under those prescriptions the equinox that we would need to guide would be 8 March(21 March Julian) after the calendar they used..

So yes the Old is more accurate

You've got your dates wrong, sir. The Julian is 13 days behind not ahead of the Revised Julian, so 21 March (Julian) is 3 April (Revised Julian), not 8 March.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?

I think both questions are equally important. It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage.

i really dont understand why astronomical accuracy really matters. my priest told me its about the sanctification of time or something but i dont understand that or why it matters. any suggestions to help me wrap my head around this?

Following the Fathers: they laid down that the Popes of Alexandria would calculate Pascha because of the skill of their astronomers.

did they indicate that that was of prime importance, even if it caused disharmony in the Church's life?

I do not know that they may known that it would cause disharmony in the Church. Frankly, I do not think that harmony was as important in the first six centuries as getting it right--except for the good of the Empire, of course.

Dear Second Chance,

Harmony was important for the early Church, even above accuracy. In the words of our holy Father Saint John Chrysostom:

Even if the Church made a mistake, exactness in the observance of times would not be as important as the offence caused by division and schism."~St. John Chrysostom

It is worth noting that Saint John is actually talking about the dating of Pascha. He was willing to accept discrepancies rather than have schisms.

Here is my question, to all the die hard old calendarists who have no appreciation for the new calendar whatsoever--is today, the date of my posting this message, 6/11/2010 or is it not?

Father, I'm not an old calendarist of any sort, but to my way of reckoning, that date won't occur for another five months. The date to which I think you refer should be written as 11/06/2010 . Yes, I know I'm being a pain in various parts of the anatomy, but there's more than one calendar issue in this world that we have to deal with! BTW, my personal preference for writing today's date in numerical form is 100612.

Here is my question, to all the die hard old calendarists who have no appreciation for the new calendar whatsoever--is today, the date of my posting this message, 6/11/2010 or is it not?

Father, I'm not an old calendarist of any sort, but to my way of reckoning, that date won't occur for another five months. The date to which I think you refer should be written as 11/06/2010 . Yes, I know I'm being a pain in various parts of the anatomy, but there's more than one calendar issue in this world that we have to deal with! BTW, my personal preference for writing today's date in numerical form is 100612.

You must have had an English or Commonwealth education too. When I saw FatherHLL's 6/11/2010, to me that means 6th November 2010.

It is more complete and more accurate than the revised one... It`s not the solar time that matters, but the ecclesial time...

If the solar time didn't matter, then why is there a solar event (the Equinox) in the calendar? Why did the Fathers not specify the Pascha as "First Sunday after the First Full Moon after mid-March?" They instead specified a day (the equinox) which is not fixed by the calendar but rather by the Sun. Weird, no?

The Pascha was calculated after a virtual equinox which was set to be at 21 March, Julian ... that being 8 Gregorian... So the new Paschalion is NOT after the sinod of Niceea , to be calculated under those prescriptions the equinox that we would need to guide would be 8 March(21 March Julian) after the calendar they used..

So yes the Old is more accurate

You've got your dates wrong, sir. The Julian is 13 days behind not ahead of the Revised Julian, so 21 March (Julian) is 3 April (Revised Julian), not 8 March.

Yes, my mystake.I was in a rush. Don`t let that make you miss the point though..

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

If the solar time didn't matter, then why is there a solar event (the Equinox) in the calendar? Why did the Fathers not specify the Pascha as "First Sunday after the First Full Moon after mid-March?" They instead specified a day (the equinox) which is not fixed by the calendar but rather by the Sun. Weird, no?

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

If the solar time didn't matter, then why is there a solar event (the Equinox) in the calendar? Why did the Fathers not specify the Pascha as "First Sunday after the First Full Moon after mid-March?" They instead specified a day (the equinox) which is not fixed by the calendar but rather by the Sun. Weird, no?

How is it a lie, exactly? You still haven't answered my question.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

If the solar time didn't matter, then why is there a solar event (the Equinox) in the calendar? Why did the Fathers not specify the Pascha as "First Sunday after the First Full Moon after mid-March?" They instead specified a day (the equinox) which is not fixed by the calendar but rather by the Sun. Weird, no?

How is it a lie, exactly? You still haven't answered my question.

I answered you above.. The fathers established March 21 as a reference for the calculating of Pascha but that was 21 March Julian... 3 April Gregorian... And even this equinox was given as aproximative or even virtual afaik.. The spring equinox astrologically was/is around 21 March +\- 1,2.. days.Discrediting the Julian("old") calendar in the detriment of the Julian/Gregorian("new") makes everyone not truthfull to himself... The fact is the "Old" is more accurate than the revised.. I had a very good link about this, I search it today but I could not find it... I read it some while ago.. I don`t remmeber pretty much from it... but the Old calendar is correct.. There were some conditions set on councils regarding the Pascha.. one of those would be that it will be included in the interval 22 March-25 April.. There are dates when Pascha falls in May... Another one was not to intersect with the Passover of the jews... This year it sort of did... I read that the fathers were knowledgeble of the minor astrological "imperfection" of the equinox of the Julian, however for them it matter the ecclesiastical accuratecy and that was accurate... Don`t get me wrong I`m not rejecting the revised calendar, nor saying that it is ungracefull but the Old is more accurate and more correct.

« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 04:49:38 PM by Azul »

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

If the solar time didn't matter, then why is there a solar event (the Equinox) in the calendar? Why did the Fathers not specify the Pascha as "First Sunday after the First Full Moon after mid-March?" They instead specified a day (the equinox) which is not fixed by the calendar but rather by the Sun. Weird, no?

How is it a lie, exactly? You still haven't answered my question.

I answered you above.. The fathers established March 21 as a reference for the calculating of Pascha but that was 21 March Julian... 3 April Gregorian... And even this equinox was given as aproximative or even virtual afaik.. The spring equinox astrologically was/is around 21 March +\- 1,2.. days.Discrediting the Julian("old") calendar in the detriment of the Julian/Gregorian("new") makes everyone not truthfull to himself... The fact is the "Old" is more accurate than the revised.. I had a very good link about this, I search it today but I could not find it... I read it some while ago.. I don`t remmeber pretty much from it... but the Old calendar is correct.. There were some conditions set on councils regarding the Pascha.. one of those would be that it will be included in the interval 22 March-25 April.. There are dates when Pascha falls in May...

That's because we haven't yet shifted the Paschalion to make it sync up with the revision in the calendar. Start actually celebrating Pascha on the same Revised Julian Calender on which we celebrate all the menologion feasts, and the problem of Pascha in May goes away. The problem isn't an inaccuracy in the New Calendar; rather, it's the fact that New Calendar churches are actually using two calendars simultaneously.

I read that the fathers were knowledgeble of the minor astrological "imperfection" of the equinox of the Julian, however for them it matter the ecclesiastical accuratecy and that was accurate...

Where did you read this? I've read stuff like this on orthodoxinfo.com, but it struck me as historical revisionism conducted with the goal of fitting the Fathers into our current, somewhat anti-historical, "other-worldly" biases. The way I see it, if the Fathers at Nicea didn't consider astronomical accuracy all that important, why did they make Alexandria, the zenith of the world of astronomy at that time, the final arbiter on the scheduling of Pascha?

Don`t get me wrong I`m not rejecting the revised calendar, nor saying that it is ungracefull but the Old is more accurate and more correct.

Maybe more accurate than the current conglomeration of both Old and New Calendars that you mistake for the New Calendar. If we New Calendar churches were actually to use the New Calendar exclusively, most of these things you see as inaccuracies would disappear, and you would likely find the New Calendar much more accurate than the Old.

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?

I think both questions are equally important. It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage.

i really dont understand why astronomical accuracy really matters. my priest told me its about the sanctification of time or something but i dont understand that or why it matters. any suggestions to help me wrap my head around this?

Following the Fathers: they laid down that the Popes of Alexandria would calculate Pascha because of the skill of their astronomers.

did they indicate that that was of prime importance, even if it caused disharmony in the Church's life?

I do not know that they may known that it would cause disharmony in the Church. Frankly, I do not think that harmony was as important in the first six centuries as getting it right--except for the good of the Empire, of course.

Dear Second Chance,

Harmony was important for the early Church, even above accuracy. In the words of our holy Father Saint John Chrysostom:

Even if the Church made a mistake, exactness in the observance of times would not be as important as the offence caused by division and schism."~St. John Chrysostom

It is worth noting that Saint John is actually talking about the dating of Pascha. He was willing to accept discrepancies rather than have schisms.

I don't think this quote from St. John Chrysostom says quite what you say it says. Again, I point to the example of Alexandria and her importance as the final authority on when Pascha would be scheduled for a given year. If one were to set uniformity and accuracy against each other, I suppose one would have to say that unity is more important, but I don't think the Nicene Fathers saw such a dichotomy. They certainly saw uniformity of practice as important, but even more important was uniformity of practice centered around an astronomically accurate calendar.

The festal calendar is part of the liturghy of the Church.. that is why it is important.. All that i read , i read it some time ago, someone gave me a golden link .. It debated this from all the persectives very deep... It spoke of the history of the calendar, the councils, what the fathers thought, the Paschalion, festal and astrological character of the calendar.. the council in 1923... the importance of the calendar in the practice of the Church... etc.. Don`t fight against the wind.. Be men enough to recognise a truth.. The Old is better than the one we have now... And one thing about astrological equinox... the equinox(astrological) does not fall always on 21 March exactly it is decayed +/- ... The fathers however made the equinox standard 21 March, which is not all that accurate with astrology... and the EFM(Eccl. Full Moon) or Paschal full moon is not the same with the astrological full moon.. this are aproximative.. so we could say that the strict astrological aspect of the calendar was not that important.. what it matter was its litugical aspect.. And by the way that 21 March equinox would be on Old not on New.. on New it will make 3 April, 13 days diff...

I feel the need to repeat myself and say that I`m not Old Calendaristic or Old Rite Orthodox... but i`m man enough to admit a truth...

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

Dear Second Chance,Harmony was important for the early Church, even above accuracy. In the words of our holy Father Saint John Chrysostom:Even if the Church made a mistake, exactness in the observance of times would not be as important as the offence caused by division and schism."~St. John Chrysostom It is worth noting that Saint John is actually talking about the dating of Pascha. He was willing to accept discrepancies rather than have schisms.

I agree, Father. This must always be at the forefront of the discussion.

The festal calendar is part of the liturghy of the Church.. that is why it is important.. All that i read , i read it some time ago, someone gave me a golden link .. It debated this from all the persectives very deep... It spoke of the history of the calendar, the councils, what the fathers thought, the Paschalion, festal and astrological character of the calendar.. the council in 1923... the importance of the calendar in the practice of the Church... etc.. Don`t fight against the wind.. Be men enough to recognise a truth.. The Old is better than the one we have now... And one thing about astrological equinox... the equinox(astrological) does not fall always on 21 March exactly it is decayed +/- ... The fathers however made the equinox standard 21 March, which is not all that accurate with astrology... and the EFM(Eccl. Full Moon) or Paschal full moon is not the same with the astrological full moon.. this are aproximative.. so we could say that the strict astrological aspect of the calendar was not that important.. what it matter was its litugical aspect.. And by the way that 21 March equinox would be on Old not on New.. on New it will make 3 April, 13 days diff...

I feel the need to repeat myself and say that I`m not Old Calendaristic or Old Rite Orthodox... but i`m man enough to admit a truth...

1. Are you going to acknowledge what I said to correct your mistaken understanding of the New Calendar?

2. Astronomy and astrology are actually two totally different disciplines. Astronomy is a hard science, while astrology is an occult practice.

3. If you're going to urge us to not fight against the wind and be men enough--don't forget that many of us are women--to recognize the truth that the Old Calendar is more accurate than the New, you owe it to your case to cite authorities outside of yourself. Merely saying, "I read it some time back, but I can't remember where," just isn't going to cut it. You need to find these sources you seem to recall reading and actually post relevant excerpts from them, along with proper credits, so we can read them for ourselves. Otherwise, you won't convince anyone but the most gullible.

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?

I think both questions are equally important. It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage.

i really dont understand why astronomical accuracy really matters. my priest told me its about the sanctification of time or something but i dont understand that or why it matters. any suggestions to help me wrap my head around this?

Following the Fathers: they laid down that the Popes of Alexandria would calculate Pascha because of the skill of their astronomers.

did they indicate that that was of prime importance, even if it caused disharmony in the Church's life?

I do not know that they may known that it would cause disharmony in the Church. Frankly, I do not think that harmony was as important in the first six centuries as getting it right--except for the good of the Empire, of course.

Dear Second Chance,

Harmony was important for the early Church, even above accuracy. In the words of our holy Father Saint John Chrysostom:

Even if the Church made a mistake, exactness in the observance of times would not be as important as the offence caused by division and schism."~St. John Chrysostom

It is worth noting that Saint John is actually talking about the dating of Pascha. He was willing to accept discrepancies rather than have schisms.

I don't think this quote from St. John Chrysostom says quite what you say it says.

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?

I think both questions are equally important. It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage.

i really dont understand why astronomical accuracy really matters. my priest told me its about the sanctification of time or something but i dont understand that or why it matters. any suggestions to help me wrap my head around this?

Following the Fathers: they laid down that the Popes of Alexandria would calculate Pascha because of the skill of their astronomers.

did they indicate that that was of prime importance, even if it caused disharmony in the Church's life?

I do not know that they may known that it would cause disharmony in the Church. Frankly, I do not think that harmony was as important in the first six centuries as getting it right--except for the good of the Empire, of course.

Dear Second Chance,

Harmony was important for the early Church, even above accuracy. In the words of our holy Father Saint John Chrysostom:

Even if the Church made a mistake, exactness in the observance of times would not be as important as the offence caused by division and schism."~St. John Chrysostom

It is worth noting that Saint John is actually talking about the dating of Pascha. He was willing to accept discrepancies rather than have schisms.

I don't think this quote from St. John Chrysostom says quite what you say it says.

Are you going to tell me what it does mean?

Nah. An apophatic approach to text is often warranted, and I think this is one of those times. IOW, it's often easier to say what some text doesn't mean than it is to define what it does mean.

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?

I think both questions are equally important. It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage.

i really dont understand why astronomical accuracy really matters. my priest told me its about the sanctification of time or something but i dont understand that or why it matters. any suggestions to help me wrap my head around this?

Following the Fathers: they laid down that the Popes of Alexandria would calculate Pascha because of the skill of their astronomers.

did they indicate that that was of prime importance, even if it caused disharmony in the Church's life?

I do not know that they may known that it would cause disharmony in the Church. Frankly, I do not think that harmony was as important in the first six centuries as getting it right--except for the good of the Empire, of course.

Dear Second Chance,

Harmony was important for the early Church, even above accuracy. In the words of our holy Father Saint John Chrysostom:

Even if the Church made a mistake, exactness in the observance of times would not be as important as the offence caused by division and schism."~St. John Chrysostom

It is worth noting that Saint John is actually talking about the dating of Pascha. He was willing to accept discrepancies rather than have schisms.

I don't think this quote from St. John Chrysostom says quite what you say it says.

Are you going to tell me what it does mean?

Nah. An apophatic approach to text is often warranted, and I think this is one of those times. IOW, it's often easier to say what some text doesn't mean than it is to define what it does mean.

I confess my ignorance; in these circumstances I do not know what an apophatic approach to this text is nor do I undersdand why it is warranted at this time. Could you explain? Or could you at least explain what the text doesn't mean if that is easier.

is astronomical accuracy the important question here, or is it more important to consider how it affects the actual life of the Church?

I think both questions are equally important. It's just that in the course of this discussion, astronomical accuracy has temporarily taken center stage.

i really dont understand why astronomical accuracy really matters. my priest told me its about the sanctification of time or something but i dont understand that or why it matters. any suggestions to help me wrap my head around this?

Following the Fathers: they laid down that the Popes of Alexandria would calculate Pascha because of the skill of their astronomers.

did they indicate that that was of prime importance, even if it caused disharmony in the Church's life?

I do not know that they may known that it would cause disharmony in the Church. Frankly, I do not think that harmony was as important in the first six centuries as getting it right--except for the good of the Empire, of course.

Dear Second Chance,

Harmony was important for the early Church, even above accuracy. In the words of our holy Father Saint John Chrysostom:

Even if the Church made a mistake, exactness in the observance of times would not be as important as the offence caused by division and schism."~St. John Chrysostom

It is worth noting that Saint John is actually talking about the dating of Pascha. He was willing to accept discrepancies rather than have schisms.

I don't think this quote from St. John Chrysostom says quite what you say it says.

Are you going to tell me what it does mean?

Nah. An apophatic approach to text is often warranted, and I think this is one of those times. IOW, it's often easier to say what some text doesn't mean than it is to define what it does mean.

I confess my ignorance; in these circumstances I do not know what an apophatic approach to this text is nor do I undersdand why it is warranted at this time. Could you explain? Or could you at least explain what the text doesn't mean if that is easier.

I don't think this quote from St. John Chrysostom says quite what you say it says.

Quote

Are you going to tell me what it does mean?

Quote

Nah. An apophatic approach to text is often warranted, and I think this is one of those times. IOW, it's often easier to say what some text doesn't mean than it is to define what it does mean.

Quote

I confess my ignorance; in these circumstances I do not know what an apophatic approach to this text is nor do I undersdand why it is warranted at this time. Could you explain? Or could you at least explain what the text doesn't mean if that is easier.

Quote

No.

PtA is always quick to insist that others provide source materials or to prove the authority of their opinions, and has more than once proclaimed the prowess of his logic in denigrating the arguments of others he disagrees with. Yet, what do we see here? What is his response to two perfectly reasonable and polite requests to clarify a statement of his? A resort to weaselword obfuscation, prefaced by a snide and disrespectful "Nah." Hardly conduct becoming of a senior member of this forum, and a moderator at that. All the more disturbing, then, when this disrespect is shown to a priest and monk old enough to be his grandfather.

« Last Edit: June 13, 2010, 12:14:06 AM by LBK »

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

The festal calendar is part of the liturghy of the Church.. that is why it is important.. All that i read , i read it some time ago, someone gave me a golden link .. It debated this from all the persectives very deep... It spoke of the history of the calendar, the councils, what the fathers thought, the Paschalion, festal and astrological character of the calendar.. the council in 1923... the importance of the calendar in the practice of the Church... etc.. Don`t fight against the wind.. Be men enough to recognise a truth.. The Old is better than the one we have now... And one thing about astrological equinox... the equinox(astrological) does not fall always on 21 March exactly it is decayed +/- ... The fathers however made the equinox standard 21 March, which is not all that accurate with astrology... and the EFM(Eccl. Full Moon) or Paschal full moon is not the same with the astrological full moon.. this are aproximative.. so we could say that the strict astrological aspect of the calendar was not that important.. what it matter was its litugical aspect.. And by the way that 21 March equinox would be on Old not on New.. on New it will make 3 April, 13 days diff...

I feel the need to repeat myself and say that I`m not Old Calendaristic or Old Rite Orthodox... but i`m man enough to admit a truth...

1. Are you going to acknowledge what I said to correct your mistaken understanding of the New Calendar?

2. Astronomy and astrology are actually two totally different disciplines. Astronomy is a hard science, while astrology is an occult practice.

3. If you're going to urge us to not fight against the wind and be men enough--don't forget that many of us are women--to recognize the truth that the Old Calendar is more accurate than the New, you owe it to your case to cite authorities outside of yourself. Merely saying, "I read it some time back, but I can't remember where," just isn't going to cut it. You need to find these sources you seem to recall reading and actually post relevant excerpts from them, along with proper credits, so we can read them for ourselves. Otherwise, you won't convince anyone but the most gullible.

2. Yes, please forgive me. I didn`t knew that picking on grammar was more important than the idea of the post.

3. You can verify what I post, if you don`t consider my words enough..

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

The festal calendar is part of the liturghy of the Church.. that is why it is important.. All that i read , i read it some time ago, someone gave me a golden link .. It debated this from all the persectives very deep... It spoke of the history of the calendar, the councils, what the fathers thought, the Paschalion, festal and astrological character of the calendar.. the council in 1923... the importance of the calendar in the practice of the Church... etc.. Don`t fight against the wind.. Be men enough to recognise a truth.. The Old is better than the one we have now... And one thing about astrological equinox... the equinox(astrological) does not fall always on 21 March exactly it is decayed +/- ... The fathers however made the equinox standard 21 March, which is not all that accurate with astrology... and the EFM(Eccl. Full Moon) or Paschal full moon is not the same with the astrological full moon.. this are aproximative.. so we could say that the strict astrological aspect of the calendar was not that important.. what it matter was its litugical aspect.. And by the way that 21 March equinox would be on Old not on New.. on New it will make 3 April, 13 days diff...

I feel the need to repeat myself and say that I`m not Old Calendaristic or Old Rite Orthodox... but i`m man enough to admit a truth...

1. Are you going to acknowledge what I said to correct your mistaken understanding of the New Calendar?

2. Astronomy and astrology are actually two totally different disciplines. Astronomy is a hard science, while astrology is an occult practice.

3. If you're going to urge us to not fight against the wind and be men enough--don't forget that many of us are women--to recognize the truth that the Old Calendar is more accurate than the New, you owe it to your case to cite authorities outside of yourself. Merely saying, "I read it some time back, but I can't remember where," just isn't going to cut it. You need to find these sources you seem to recall reading and actually post relevant excerpts from them, along with proper credits, so we can read them for ourselves. Otherwise, you won't convince anyone but the most gullible.

2. Yes, please forgive me. I didn`t knew that picking on grammar was more important than the idea of the post.

3. You can verify what I post, if you don`t consider my words enough..

Sorry. You're the one actively trying to convince us that what you say is true. In the world of debate, that puts the burden of proof on you to back up your words, not on me to verify them. Nice try, though.

Sorry. You're the one actively trying to convince us that what you say is true. In the world of debate, that puts the burden of proof on you to back up your words, not on me to verify them. Nice try, though.

But since this is not the world of debate, there really is no "burden of proof". Some people, who are not intellectually lazy, are capable of formulating ideas on their own and are not simple parrots of what they have read in a book. You tend to find these people a lot outside of academia. That is why in the real world, a good number of advancements are made by amateurs. They don't know the rules, so they are not bound by them. They just leave it to the scientists and academics to figure out how they did it. I would hope that the discussions on this forum were intended to enlighten, not simply to "win" an argument.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Sorry. You're the one actively trying to convince us that what you say is true. In the world of debate, that puts the burden of proof on you to back up your words, not on me to verify them. Nice try, though.

But since this is not the world of debate, there really is no "burden of proof".

You are right that this forum really isn't the world of debate, so I may have used the word "debate" a bit too loosely. I disagree, however, with your thesis that the non-debate nature of this forum negates all "burden of proof". This is a place for the exchange and discussion of issues pertinent to our walks as Orthodox Christians; sometimes these discussions will even take on the form of a debate, which is not exactly a bad thing.

Within this place of exchange and discussion of issues, people quite often make assertions of fact with the hope of convincing us to embrace their points of view. That's what I see Azul doing here. In such a case, if the other person wants to be convincing, he needs to be able to cite authorities outside of himself--yes, there's a "burden of proof" there. It's not enough to say, "I can't prove it, but I know it can be verified if you're willing to go to the work of testing it yourself." That to me is the definition of intellectual laziness. It's not my task to look for the evidence that verifies his position, nor is it my job to prove him wrong unless I choose to do so. To pass the buck to me is intellectual laziness, and I simply refuse to take on someone else's responsibility merely because the other person is too lazy to do it himself. If Azul wants to convince us of the truth of his point of view, let him do the work of convincing us.

Some people, who are not intellectually lazy, are capable of formulating ideas on their own and are not simple parrots of what they have read in a book.

But this isn't about someone formulating his own ideas as opposed to merely parroting what he's read in a book. Even if one is formulating his own ideas, he's inevitably drawing information from outside himself, since the gathering of information is a necessary first step in the critical thinking process. So where is Azul drawing the premises for his conclusion that the Old Calendar is more accurate than the New? I know he's not just pulling this out of thin air, since he himself admitted to reading the foundations of his belief somewhere. If he wants us to believe in what he's saying, he owes it to his case to share with us the sources of what he's using as raw material for his reasoning.

I hope you're not saying that those inside the world of academia are incapable of doing anything more than parroting what they read in books. If anything, the first thing academics learn is how to use their minds so they can articulate their own conclusions from what they read. If anything, it is this "free-thinking" approach to posited "truths" that so often gets them in trouble with the proponents of "orthodoxy" such as you so often present yourself to be.

That is why in the real world, a good number of advancements are made by amateurs. They don't know the rules, so they are not bound by them. They just leave it to the scientists and academics to figure out how they did it. I would hope that the discussions on this forum were intended to enlighten, not simply to "win" an argument.

I'm here to be enlightened, not to win arguments. However, when someone says, "I know what I say is true, but I can't verify it," I don't find that very enlightening.

1200 replies on this topic. If you are even reading a 10th of this thread you are wasting your life.

I don't know about that, but I think you are going to be confused. I mean, if you ask an Orthodox Christian in the year 2800 what day of the week it is, is it true that you are going to get three conflicting and different (but orthodox?) answers?

I'm here to be enlightened, not to win arguments. However, when someone says, "I know what I say is true, but I can't verify it," I don't find that very enlightening.

Outside of academia, in the real world where people have work to do, they don't have time to keep everything in a file. In my own case, my personal library of theological books numbers in the hundreds (not counting those about other subjects), and since I am an avid reader and have been since my youth, I have probably read thousands of books in my lifetime. Combine that with having lived in nearly every region of this country, and having visited other countries than this, not to mention training and academic education, I have gathered a bit of knowledge in my lifetime. If someone wants me to quote chapter and verse of where I learned something, I'll tell them to look it up themselves. I am too busy to revisit something that I already know just to satisfy someone to stupid or lazy to find it themselves. In my years of arguing, writing reports, and advising people on various topics (professionally in several industries), I have found that those who continuously feel the need to ask "where is that written" or "where did you find that" during an argument have usually reached the end of their intellectual capacity to continue, and are now using the tactic of trying to discredit the other person. If two intellectual equals are debating a subject that they both should know, they should both be familiar enough with the subject matter to find what they need to know. If they are not, perhaps they should remain quiet and learn rather than continue talking about what they don't know. If I think enough to debate someone, I usually take for granted that they are familiar with the subject and have something to offer. If I find they don't, I drop the conversation, not play stupid little head games with them.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

I'm here to be enlightened, not to win arguments. However, when someone says, "I know what I say is true, but I can't verify it," I don't find that very enlightening.

Outside of academia, in the real world where people have work to do, they don't have time to keep everything in a file. In my own case, my personal library of theological books numbers in the hundreds (not counting those about other subjects), and since I am an avid reader and have been since my youth, I have probably read thousands of books in my lifetime. Combine that with having lived in nearly every region of this country, and having visited other countries than this, not to mention training and academic education, I have gathered a bit of knowledge in my lifetime. If someone wants me to quote chapter and verse of where I learned something, I'll tell them to look it up themselves. I am too busy to revisit something that I already know just to satisfy someone to stupid or lazy to find it themselves. In my years of arguing, writing reports, and advising people on various topics (professionally in several industries), I have found that those who continuously feel the need to ask "where is that written" or "where did you find that" during an argument have usually reached the end of their intellectual capacity to continue, and are now using the tactic of trying to discredit the other person. If two intellectual equals are debating a subject that they both should know, they should both be familiar enough with the subject matter to find what they need to know. If they are not, perhaps they should remain quiet and learn rather than continue talking about what they don't know. If I think enough to debate someone, I usually take for granted that they are familiar with the subject and have something to offer. If I find they don't, I drop the conversation, not play stupid little head games with them.

True, but the idea that the Old Calendar is more accurate astronomically than the New is not common knowledge nor generally accepted, and I'm not the only one complaining of Azul's continued unsubstantiated assertion of this.

I'm here to be enlightened, not to win arguments. However, when someone says, "I know what I say is true, but I can't verify it," I don't find that very enlightening.

Outside of academia, in the real world where people have work to do, they don't have time to keep everything in a file. In my own case, my personal library of theological books numbers in the hundreds (not counting those about other subjects), and since I am an avid reader and have been since my youth, I have probably read thousands of books in my lifetime. Combine that with having lived in nearly every region of this country, and having visited other countries than this, not to mention training and academic education, I have gathered a bit of knowledge in my lifetime. If someone wants me to quote chapter and verse of where I learned something, I'll tell them to look it up themselves. I am too busy to revisit something that I already know just to satisfy someone to stupid or lazy to find it themselves. In my years of arguing, writing reports, and advising people on various topics (professionally in several industries), I have found that those who continuously feel the need to ask "where is that written" or "where did you find that" during an argument have usually reached the end of their intellectual capacity to continue, and are now using the tactic of trying to discredit the other person. If two intellectual equals are debating a subject that they both should know, they should both be familiar enough with the subject matter to find what they need to know. If they are not, perhaps they should remain quiet and learn rather than continue talking about what they don't know. If I think enough to debate someone, I usually take for granted that they are familiar with the subject and have something to offer. If I find they don't, I drop the conversation, not play stupid little head games with them.

If two intellectual equals are debating a subject that they both should know, they should both be familiar enough with the subject matter to find what they need to know. If they are not, perhaps they should remain quiet and learn rather than continue talking about what they don't know. If I think enough to debate someone, I usually take for granted that they are familiar with the subject and have something to offer. If I find they don't, I drop the conversation, not play stupid little head games with them.

The problem, of course, is that this is the internet and, often times, the two "intellectual equals" you're referring to aren't the only ones involved in a discussion; internet fora are not in a vacuum.

Sites like Snopes.com exists because it is incredibly to spread disinformation on the internet; one should always be prepared to at least point towards the name of a source one is quoting or using if one asserts something strongly, particularly if it is at the foundation of an argument.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

I'm here to be enlightened, not to win arguments. However, when someone says, "I know what I say is true, but I can't verify it," I don't find that very enlightening.

Outside of academia, in the real world where people have work to do, they don't have time to keep everything in a file. In my own case, my personal library of theological books numbers in the hundreds (not counting those about other subjects), and since I am an avid reader and have been since my youth, I have probably read thousands of books in my lifetime. Combine that with having lived in nearly every region of this country, and having visited other countries than this, not to mention training and academic education, I have gathered a bit of knowledge in my lifetime. If someone wants me to quote chapter and verse of where I learned something, I'll tell them to look it up themselves. I am too busy to revisit something that I already know just to satisfy someone to stupid or lazy to find it themselves. In my years of arguing, writing reports, and advising people on various topics (professionally in several industries), I have found that those who continuously feel the need to ask "where is that written" or "where did you find that" during an argument have usually reached the end of their intellectual capacity to continue, and are now using the tactic of trying to discredit the other person. If two intellectual equals are debating a subject that they both should know, they should both be familiar enough with the subject matter to find what they need to know. If they are not, perhaps they should remain quiet and learn rather than continue talking about what they don't know. If I think enough to debate someone, I usually take for granted that they are familiar with the subject and have something to offer. If I find they don't, I drop the conversation, not play stupid little head games with them.

True, but the idea that the Old Calendar is more accurate astronomically than the New is not common knowledge nor generally accepted, and I'm not the only one complaining of Azul's continued unsubstantiated assertion of this.

I'm here to be enlightened, not to win arguments. However, when someone says, "I know what I say is true, but I can't verify it," I don't find that very enlightening.

Outside of academia, in the real world where people have work to do, they don't have time to keep everything in a file. In my own case, my personal library of theological books numbers in the hundreds (not counting those about other subjects), and since I am an avid reader and have been since my youth, I have probably read thousands of books in my lifetime. Combine that with having lived in nearly every region of this country, and having visited other countries than this, not to mention training and academic education, I have gathered a bit of knowledge in my lifetime. If someone wants me to quote chapter and verse of where I learned something, I'll tell them to look it up themselves. I am too busy to revisit something that I already know just to satisfy someone to stupid or lazy to find it themselves. In my years of arguing, writing reports, and advising people on various topics (professionally in several industries), I have found that those who continuously feel the need to ask "where is that written" or "where did you find that" during an argument have usually reached the end of their intellectual capacity to continue, and are now using the tactic of trying to discredit the other person. If two intellectual equals are debating a subject that they both should know, they should both be familiar enough with the subject matter to find what they need to know. If they are not, perhaps they should remain quiet and learn rather than continue talking about what they don't know. If I think enough to debate someone, I usually take for granted that they are familiar with the subject and have something to offer. If I find they don't, I drop the conversation, not play stupid little head games with them.

True, but the idea that the Old Calendar is more accurate astronomically than the New is not common knowledge nor generally accepted, and I'm not the only one complaining of Azul's continued unsubstantiated assertion of this.

"The Julian year is not a fundamental unit of measurement, nor is it sanctioned in the International System of Units (SI), nor does it correspond very exactly to the length of a solar year. Nevertheless, astronomers and other scientists use it for convenience to measure lengthy durations, which would be unwieldy to express as a number of seconds (the SI unit of time). Astronomers before the mid-20th century used the so called Besselian year instead, which corresponds much more closely to the real length of a solar year, but which is also not totally exact, and which has the disadvantage of being much harder to determine than the simple 365.25 day Julian year. Simplicity is also the reason why the Julian year is used instead of a "Gregorian Year" of 365.2425 days."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the "accuracy" of the Julian Calendar.

I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.

1. There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2. There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century. It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.

Well let’s see. I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.1. From the time of Julius Caesar.2. Julius Scalinger’s calendar.3. Milankovic’s calendar.4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.

I thought the same until I discovered that there are TWO Julian calendars.

1. There is the one from the time of Julius Caesar with which we are familiar.

2. There is the one used in astronomy and created by Julius Scalinger in the 16th century. It commences back around the 6th century before Christ and continues to this day.

Well let’s see. I count several Julian calendars mentioned so far.1. From the time of Julius Caesar.2. Julius Scalinger’s calendar.3. Milankovic’s calendar.4. Revised Julian calendar which was accepted in 1924.

Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric you've seen on this thread. Calendars 3 and 4 on your list are actually the same calendar. Maybe instead of listing the Milanković Calendar, you should list the calendar proposed by Maksim Trpković, the calendar the reform synod of 1923 rejected in favor of Milanković's proposed modifications to the Trpković Calendar. (Source: http://www.space.bas.bg/astro/Rogen2004/Oth-3.pdf )

Serbian Patriarchate proposed Tripkovic's calendar (since that was the proposal debated and adopted at the Synod); Milankovic was a delegate of the Kingdom of Serbs ... etc., about which he was notified about a month before the conference: he acquinted himself with Metropolitan Dozic shortly before travel, and discussed more at the train to Istanbul, when he pointed that he prepared a more accuratre one calendar. To obey the decision of Synod, Metropolitan suggested they stick with Tripkovic's calendar as the proposal, but advised Milankovic to expose more accurate calculations during the debate about the proposal. There were competing proposals at the "Pan-orthodox" conference, Romanians made at least one comprehensive.

Therefore "Pan-orthodox" conference couldnt' have adopted Milankovic's calendar, since it wasn't proposed to it in the first place. The conference was held on May, 1923, while Milankovic published his final version on October 1923.

Serbian Patriarchate proposed Tripkovic's calendar (since that was the proposal debated and adopted at the Synod); Milankovic was a delegate of the Kingdom of Serbs ... etc., about which he was notified about a month before the conference: he acquinted himself with Metropolitan Dozic shortly before travel, and discussed more at the train to Istanbul, when he pointed that he prepared a more accuratre one calendar. To obey the decision of Synod, Metropolitan suggested they stick with Tripkovic's calendar as the proposal, but advised Milankovic to expose more accurate calculations during the debate about the proposal. There were competing proposals at the "Pan-orthodox" conference, Romanians made at least one comprehensive.

Therefore "Pan-orthodox" conference couldnt' have adopted Milankovic's calendar, since it wasn't proposed to it in the first place. The conference was held on May, 1923, while Milankovic published his final version on October 1923.

All I see when I follow this link is a book collection. No actual quotations of any of Milankovic's works that I can see.

Also, can you tell me why the source I just cited, a source you cited earlier in this discussion, specifically says that the synod accepted the Milankovic Calendar over the Trpkovic, or rather, accepted the Trpkovic Calendar only with Milankovic's modifications?

Also, can you tell me why the source I just cited, a source you cited earlier in this discussion, specifically says that the synod accepted the Milankovic Calendar over the Trpkovic, or rather, accepted the Trpkovic Calendar only with Milankovic's modifications?

Sorry no, I cannot help you with that. You would need to contact the authors and ask them.